A representative Parliament? Tell her she’s dreaming

June 14, 2011

I had the most wonderful dream last night. I dreamed that politicians, asked to appear on media panel shows and radio interviews, engaged on the issues. I dreamed that three word slogans and blatant spin doctoring were somehow removed from the political vocabulary. I dreamed of passionate, substantive debate – that each side acknowledged the good ideas of the other, and owned up to their own mistakes. I dreamed that politicians worked together to get stuck into the really difficult issues – climate change, asylum seekers, mental health, indigenous health, true equality – without fear of losing the next election or its campaign donations.

I dreamed of an Australian Parliament that truly put the country’s welfare first, ahead of party ideology, ahead of points-scoring and vote-buying.

I woke up to this.

Peter Dutton, Shadow Spokesperson for Health and Ageing, appeared with Trade Minister Craig Emerson on Sky News’ AM Agenda program. He had this to say on asylum seekers: Nauru is the only possible solution for us to deal with this ‘problem’. Over there, people would be free to roam in the community, and even attend church. The Nauruans would welcome them, just like they did last time. It’s the only humane solution.

Humane. How does Dutton not choke on that word?

Nauru is a tiny, water-starved island only 21km across – a worked-out phosphate mine. It is completely dependent on other nations, primarily Australia, for almost everything. It is utterly isolated. Dutton’s declaration that asylum seekers sent there would be free to roam in the community is nonsensical – it’s not like they can disappear into the wider community, is it? Where would they go? Attempt to swim to the Solomon Islands, over 1000km away?

And you can just bet the Nauruan government is willing to bend over backwards to get the detention centre re-opened. They know a good cash cow when they see one. Australian money helps keep the bankrupt nation afloat. When the Pacific Solution was scrapped by the Rudd government, they were deeply dismayed at the loss of funds.

And Peter Dutton says this was humane. Innocent people were exiled to this island in handcuffs, repeatedly bullied to rescind their claim for refugee status, detained for long periods of time in conditions that would be unacceptable for prisoners of war, suffer physical and mental illness, self-harm and even attempt suicide. How could that possibly be humane?

But then Craig Emerson extolled the virtues of sending asylum seekers to Malaysia or Manus Island. It’s a ‘regional solution’. Clearly that is better than simply sending people back to Nauru.

I’ve already written about the potential dangers of Malaysia for asylum seekers. To even suggest that the government’s proposed refugee swap is in some way beneficial for those people is ludicrous.

But what about Manus Island in Papua New Guinea? That was part of the Pacific Solution. That might be a better place.

Well, it’s bigger than Nauru … around 100km x 30km.

Other than that … let’s see. Isolation, mental and physical illness, abuse of human rights … sound familiar?

Then there was Aladdin Sisalem, the ‘forgotten asylum seeker’, who was detained alone in the Manus Island centre well after its supposed closure.

And just by the way, Papua New Guinea also has a history of mistreating asylum seekers, and beating confirmed refugees.

The so-called success of every one of these ‘solutions’ depends entirely on the ‘out of sight, out of mind’ principle. If asylum seekers aren’t visible, they might as well not exist. Politically, that’s a big win. Never mind the systemic abuses of power and human rights – documented facts of record.

There was a Senate Committee investigation into the Pacific Solution, and Nauru in particular. One submission documented the conditions in the camps, and the plight of the asylum seekers held there. In the words of one interviewed detainee:

‘Nauru is not a camp for human, it is a jail just like a hell.’

Another investigation, undertaken by Oxfam, concluded that any way you slice it, the price of Australia’s offshore detention policy is ‘too high’.

Green Senator Sarah Hanson-Young wrote a stinging editorial in The Sydney Morning Herald today condemning the government’s ‘regional solution’, side-swiping the Coalition along the way. She made some excellent points, including the fact that Australia is shirking its legal obligations towards refugees.

But even she couldn’t resist throwing in a party political ad.

These are the people we elected. It’s no use saying, ‘Well, I didn’t vote for them!’ We did. We all did. And then we sit on our hands for three years until the next election, vote again and wonder why nothing changes.

Hanson-Young urged people to take to the streets in support of humane treatment for asylum seekers. While we’re at it, we could march in support of same-sex marriage, tackling climate change, equal pay, or any one of a dozen causes.

Or how about this? We take to the streets to protest against politicians who care more about votes than people. We march in support of a working Parliament committed to the good of the country rather than the perpetuation of ideology. We wave our banners and call for real debate. We stop traffic in the capital cities of Australia. We take the passion that we disseminate amongst all those causes, and focus it straight at Canberra, and say to politicians, ‘You serve us, and it’s about time you remembered that!’

Oh.

Damn.

I just woke up again.

2 Comments | Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by theconsciencevote

The evil of the Malaysian solution

June 3, 2011

WARNING: This article contains graphic descriptions of torture and links to videos containing graphic violence.

The Gillard government’s proposed deal with Malaysia to get rid of its asylum seeker problem just goes from bad to worse. It’s not sealed yet – and may never be, as Shadow Immigration Spokesperson Scott Morrison keeps insisting – but it looks a lot more likely than the East Timor processing centre idea ever did.

Bad enough that the government intends to dump 800 of its asylum seekers into a country that has not signed the UN Convention on Refugees – a country over which we have no possible influence (unlike Nauru, which is effectively dependent on our money just to survive).

Bad enough that the government wants to take five times as many people back – people who’ve already been processed in Malaysia and found to be refugees.

Bad enough, the ridiculous argument that this deal would ‘remove the product’ for people smugglers to peddle.

But now documents have surfaced that show some of the wheeling and dealing taking place away from public scrutiny. What those documents show is just how much the government is willing to entertain – and it’s appalling.

Gillard maintained absolutely that Australia would determine who was sent overseas, and who would be accepted in return. She said repeatedly in Parliament that Malaysia did not have any kind of veto in that respect.

Yet this is exactly what Malaysia wants – the right to pick and choose who they want to offload on us, while ensuring they get the best possible deal.

Then there’s the matter of children. One of Labor’s biggest sticks for beating the former Howard government over the head was the dreadful prospect of children ‘behind razor wire’. There’s no doubt that particular image did a lot to turn people away from the kind of open-ended detention policies that former Prime Minister Rudd vowed to abolish. And then there was the announcement in October last year that children in detention would be re-settled in the community and given help from social services.

But lo and behold, the government now refuses to guarantee that children won’t be sent to Malaysia. Unaccompanied children. To do otherwise would ‘send the wrong message’ to the people smugglers, and suddenly we’d see even more children turning up on boats without relatives, apparently.

Right. Because the idea that children will be processed exactly the same as they currently are will immediately cause people smugglers to go out and advertise.

This is nothing but punitive – and it will do nothing to deter parents whose choices are to risk their kids being one of 800 sent to Malaysia, or risk their kids being killed by staying where they are. All it achieves is to frighten already desperate people, and put them through yet more trauma.

Finally – and most disgustingly – the documents reveal that Malaysia wants to excise two words from the proposed deal. Just two words – that’s all. How much of a difference could that make? And just what are those words, anyway?

Human. Rights.

Yes. Malaysia, apparently, doesn’t want to be troubled by such pesky notions. They’re not signatories to any Conventions – so why should they be bound by any other agreement? They’ve got a good system going there. They can detain people for up to 60 days without charge or representation. They allow refugees to be in the community – but won’t allow them to work legally or protect them from exploitation and abuse. They turn a blind eye to police brutality.

And they can cane people – even tourists – for such serious crimes as drinking beer in public. Technically, only men can be caned, but it’s a custom more honoured in the breach than the observance.

Amnesty International calls caning a form of torture. We’re not talking about a whack across the butt with a ruler in the Principal’s office, either. Caning is carried out in a prison yard with multiple witnesses present.

The victim is naked except for an apron tied around the waist that exposes the buttocks. They are tied to an A-frame and the strokes – up to 24 with a length of rattan of varying thicknesses (depending on the severity of the crime) – are administered at full force. The official administering the caning must ensure that the tip hits the victim’s body – increasing the pain.

The initial stroke raises a welt. Typically, the skin splits and bleeds as subsequent blows land on the same area. The victim may convulse or shake uncontrollably, cry out and break down emotionally. Officials wearing gloves and surgical masks flank the victim, sometimes lacing their fingers behind his head to hold him closer to the A-frame.

Horrifically, those same officials may pat the victim’s head while the abuse is taking place. Perhaps they think they’re being kind.

The entire sentence must be carried out in one session – unless the victim passes out or suffers some other kind of medical crisis from the pain and shock.

But it’s not all bad – they do take the victim to the prison hospital afterwards.

This is the system Malaysia seeks to preserve. This is the system into which the government is committed to sending people already traumatised by war or persecution. People exploited, beggared and sometimes enslaved by despicable opportunists. People who risk their lives to escape to a better place.

This is the system into which our government is prepared to send children who may not even have a parent to shelter behind.

Sustainable Population Minister Tony Burke backed up Immigration Minister Chris Bowen in the media. It’s only a preliminary document, they insisted. It’s not the actual deal. There are lots of issues to work through.

But it’s what they didn’t say that made their performance utterly contemptible.

They didn’t say that children would be protected.

And they didn’t say that ensuring the preservation of human rights would be a deal-breaker.

The implications are disturbing, to say the least. That the government is prepared to even consider such revolting provisions shows just how far they are willing to go to grab back a few votes and appear ‘tough on asylum seekers’. It shows that they believe building up their image is more important than the safety, well-being and quality of life of the most vulnerable people.

There’s a word for this behaviour when it happens in the schoolyard. It’s called bullying.

Yes, Prime Minister – you are a bully. Your Immigration Minister is a bully. Your Population Minister is a bully. And every member of your party that doesn’t outright condemn you and fight to stop this terrible deal is guilty of hiding behind a bully rather than doing something to stop you.

What Howard did with the Pacific Solution was horrible, and his government should always be rightly condemned. He, too, was a bully.

But what Gillard proposes is far, far worse. In fact, it’s simply evil.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young was asked today why she wasn’t out there marching in the streets leading people in protest against this deal.

It’s a good question. Australians were traumatised by seeing evidence of the unbelievable cruelty meted out to cattle in Indonesian slaughterhouses. They mobilised – and now we have enquiries, bans in place, bills to ban live export of cattle entirely, and any number of other measures are beginning.

Are we going to have to see a young teenaged boy tied up to a post and caned until he cries, bleeds and faints before we’ll do the same for asylum seekers?

Are we going to have to show many more videos like this one?

What will it take?

3 Comments | Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by theconsciencevote

Conversation with my daughter

May 16, 2011

Watching a report on asylum seekers on 7.30 tonight, one of our daughters spoke up unexpectedly: ‘I don’t understand. Shouldn’t we help them? Why do they keep talking about how they should stop the boats?’

‘Yes, we should help them,’ I said.

‘Then why do they want to stop the boats? What’s wrong with the boat people?’

We tried to explain that there was nothing wrong with asylum seekers, that they were scared people who couldn’t live in their home countries any longer because of war or not being allowed to practise their religion. That sometimes they needed to leave so urgently that they made a risky trip in a boat halfway across the world to look for a country that would let them live there.

‘So we should help them, but why don’t people want them to come here?’

Oh boy.

‘Is it too expensive? Aren’t there enough houses? I could share my room with my sister again and someone could live here,’ she offered.

‘No, it’s just … well, some people worry that if too many refugees come there won’t be enough jobs. And some people worry that refugees might make Australia too different.’

‘That’s silly,’ she declared confidently.

‘And, some people are just, well, afraid.’

‘Why are they afraid of boat people?’

How do you explain xenophobia to a ten-year old? We did our best, but to our daughter – who’s played and learned alongside kids from countries all around the world since she was a toddler – it didn’t make sense.

Then she thought she had the answer. ‘Well, someone should tell them that they shouldn’t be scared. The Prime Minister or the government should tell people. Then they wouldn’t be trying to stop the boats all the time and we could help those people. Why don’t the government do that?’

There was, simply, nothing we could say to that except, ‘Sorry but we don’t know.’

I felt ashamed to have to say that. Not because I didn’t know, but because I had to admit to my daughter that her Prime Minister didn’t have the simple humanity to stand up and say, ‘No one has anything to fear from asylum-seekers.’

I couldn’t bring myself to tell her that the government – that she trusts has everyone’s best interests at heart – cares more about polls than people in need.

I couldn’t tell her that the government lacked the courage to smack down the nay-sayers and the fear-mongers. I couldn’t tell her that the number of voices actually speaking out to say, ‘You have your facts completely wrong, and you should have the decency to help people’, is vanishingly small.

And I couldn’t tell her that – with a government frantically pandering to xenophobes, and an Opposition engaging in the worst sort of behaviour and claiming it does so in the name of ‘compassion’ – the chances of this situation changing were practically nil.

I want my daughter to be proud of her country. I want her to be able to say she is hopeful for the future, and that she trusts her elected representatives to do what is right – not what is expedient and will win elections.

I want to be able to look my daughter in the eye and say, ‘We have a great government that is helping people in terrible situations, and teaching our citizens how to be compassionate, that is leading by example and speaking out against those would capitalise on fear and lies’.

As it is, I could only say to her, ‘You’re right. Our government should be doing these things. And I don’t know why it isn’t, but we can do what we can to change things, and try to make things better’.

She went off to get ready for bed puzzled, and disappointed.

I’m ashamed of my government. I’m ashamed of the Opposition. I’m ashamed that those who should set an example in compassion and human decency dress up their venal, petty vote-chasing as some kind of ‘principled stand’.

And I’m angry – because my daughter lost a little more of her innocence tonight.

5 Comments | Politics | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by theconsciencevote

Pointless, heartless, racist – Gillard’s ‘refugee swap’

May 10, 2011

The Budget is imminent, but right now everyone’s talking about the government’s proposed ‘refugee swap’ program.

Sounds like a bad reality TV show, doesn’t it? ‘The tribe has spoken’, ‘you’ve been voted out of the Big Brother detention centre’ – in other words, no refugee status for you. If only that were the case.

Prime Minister Gillard announced this deal with Malaysia on May 7. Simply put, Australia plans to ship 800 asylum seekers directly to Malaysia (rather than to an ‘offshore’ processing centre), and in return 4000 refugees already resident there will be re-settled here. This swap will cost around $292 million, and apparently deal a ‘big blow’ to people smugglers.

Just how is this one-off deal going to ‘remove the product’ (to use the odious – but empty – phrase so beloved of the Coalition)? Well, Gillard didn’t exactly spell that out. She did make an obscure reference to sending people ‘to the back of the queue’ – another completely meaningless phrase, but one that clearly dogwhistles to those who’ve traded on the mythical idea that there is a queue, and that it can be jumped.

The implication is pretty clear, though. This deal is designed to send a message to would-be asylum seekers – not to people smugglers. Baldly put, it goes like this: we’ve sent your lot to Malaysia before, and we can do it again. Don’t think that you can risk your life to get to Australia, because we’ll just intercept your boat, turn you around and dump you on a country with an appalling human rights record. To add insult to injury, we’ll take five times as many from that country and foot the bill for them to live here.

And just who are these people, who are apparently so worthy that Gillard is prepared to expand Australia’s humanitarian refugee quota and pay a substantial amount of money to transport here? The likelihood is that they are Christians who fled from Burma with the help of – wait for it – people smugglers.

Now, there is no doubt that Burma is a country in terrible turmoil. Between natural disasters and the oppressive military regime, life there is clearly unbearable for tens of thousands of people. But what, exactly, is the difference between these refugees and those who attempt the sea voyage to Australia?

This is all about pandering to those who believe that some refugees are more deserving than others. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and Shadow Immigration spokesperson Scott Morrison peddle this idea on a regular basis, weaving a tale of people languishing in refugee camps all over the world, enduring with near saint-like patience while unscrupulous characters use their wealth and privilege to steal their chances at freedom and a better life.

I wish that were an exaggeration – but that is, in essence, one of the pillars of Coalition asylum seeker policy. Of course, it’s utter rubbish.

Both groups pay exorbitant amounts to flee – and they raise this money by selling every asset they own or borrowing money from lenders who are happy to recoup their investment via an extended period of extortion. The idea that those who come by boat are, in effect, idle rich who are a bit miffed with conditions in their homeland and so dip into their huge savings accounts has no basis in fact.

Both enter countries ‘illegally’ – insofar as fleeing persecution, crossing a border, approaching the authorities of that nation and requesting asylum is illegal. Which, of course, it isn’t.

Both have legitimate reasons to seek asylum, and in the vast majority of cases, are granted refugee status by the UNHCR.

And of course, Australia is by no means the only possible destination for those currently in Malaysia.

So where, exactly, is the difference between those who flee overland and those who come by sea? What makes one group more deserving of Australia’s welcome?

Is it because Gillard thinks these refugees in Malaysia might stand a better chance of ‘integrating’ into Australian society? There’s no evidence to suggest this might be the case. They’re not necessarily fluent English speakers, and it’s not like they have any familiarity with the staples of Australian life (McDonalds, Best and Less, wandering around in bikinis on Bondi Beach).

Do the refugees in Malaysia, perhaps, have special skills that we desperately need? It’s unlikely. Most refugees in Malaysia, while able to travel freely throughout the country, work illegally in unskilled labour (since they are unable to obtain work permits). They might well be highly skilled, but we have no way of knowing. Even if Malaysian authorities do keep such records, they won’t necessarily do us any good. Under the proposed agreement, Malaysia nominates which refugees Australia gets. We have little, if any, say in the choice.

Could it be, perhaps, that one group isn’t Muslim? Of course, asylum seekers who come by boat are of many different faiths, but the perception is that they are a homogenous group of Muslims who ‘aren’t like us’. They ‘wouldn’t integrate’. (We are apparently supposed to infer that Christians from other countries would.) That’s a perception the Coalition and News Limited are happy to foster – along with the suspicion that terrorists might lurk in their midst.

Now, it seems, the government is willing to do the same. They’re not saying that, oh no – but when you unpack the Malaysian deal, there’s just no good reason for it.

It doesn’t deter people smugglers. They know there will always be someone desperate enough to pay them, someone who gambles that just maybe they can end up somewhere better. Gillard’s claims that her ‘one-for-five’ swap will have any effect on the people smuggling trade are utterly without foundation – because the smugglers largely don’t care what might happen to the people they transport. The bottom line is money – and pushing a boatload of asylum seekers over to Malaysia won’t prevent them from acquiring a healthy bank balance.

It doesn’t streamline the refugee claims process, nor does it send anyone to the back of the ‘queue’. It merely offloads a responsibility that would otherwise have been ours onto another country. Worse, it removes protection from asylum seekers – Malaysia is not a signatory to the UN’s Convention on Refugees.

Remember when Gillard categorically ruled out re-opening the detention centre on Nauru because that country hadn’t signed the UN Convention? Rings a little hollow now, doesn’t it? (Incidentally, Gillard’s recent proposal – that the Manus Island centre be re-opened – failed to take into account that Papua New Guinea had also never signed the Convention. But that’s another story.)

It doesn’t prevent unrest, protests and violence at Australian detention centres. Gillard isn’t proposing to remove people from the system, just to re-direct the next 800 who turn up in the Indian Ocean. Nothing in this deal addresses the problems of overcrowding, long delays in processing or the psychological distress that is a known consequence of extended detention.

What it does do is enshrine the idea that some people – who just happen to be non-Arabic and non-Muslim – are worthy to have the government take extraordinary measures to aid them, while others do not even qualify for the most basic of human decencies.

Those others, by the way, may include pregnant women and children.

Abbott referred to this deal as a ‘Malaysian Solution’. It isn’t a solution. It isn’t even a stopgap measure designed to take the pressure off a system in crisis.

At best, it’s a token effort in the government’s ongoing struggle to convince the public that it’s working towards a ‘regional’ solution to the ‘problem’ of asylum seekers.

At worst, it’s a clear message that Muslims – or those who ‘look’ like Muslims – aren’t welcome here. That they aren’t ‘good enough’, or ‘worthy enough’ to justify the pitiful expense of processing their asylum claims in our excised zone, let alone on our mainland.

Last session in Parliament, Gillard frequently referred to the words and actions of former Prime Minister John Howard in a remarkably complimentary fashion. It seems now that she’s adopted another infamous saying of his, captured in the first few seconds of this ad:

The daylight between the government and Howard’s policies – and between the government and the Opposition – is shrinking fast. Both try to dress up xenophobia as something necessary to benefit Australia – either to ‘protect our borders’, or to ‘show fairness’. The pretence is wearing increasingly thin, though.

The Opposition point out that this latest ‘one-for-five’ deal is a pointless attempt to salvage a system in crisis, and that it’s bad for Australia. They’re right – but not for the reasons they think.

It’s not bad for us because we’ll get 4000 more already-processed refugees able to be immediately settled in the community. It’s not bad for us because we’re likely to get Malaysia’s cast-offs.

It’s bad for us because our Prime Minister has made it clear that she will cater to racists and fear-mongers by dumping Muslim asylum seekers in yet another perilous situation. It’s bad because it tells the world that Australia doesn’t want you if you’re not ‘the right sort of person’.

And it’s bad because it perpetuates the lie that people in desperate need are scheming, untrustworthy and inhumane. It dehumanises them by labelling them ‘queue-jumpers’, and further undermines the efforts of those who work to see all people treated with dignity.

Shame on you, Prime Minister. And shame on you, Mr Abbott, for scoring political points rather than truly holding the government to account for this revolting excuse for policy.

4 Comments | Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by theconsciencevote

High Court win for asylum seekers

November 11, 2010

The Full Bench of the High Court handed down a unanimous decision today that has the potential to completely change how boat-borne asylum seekers have their claims processed. In this landmark ruling, the Court found that two Sri Lankan asylum seekers were denied ‘procedural fairness’, because – being incarcerated on Christmas Island – they had no access to the Australian court system.

See, that’s something not many people know, and no one talks about. If you walk off a plane and claim asylum, you are released into the community, assessed by the Refugee Review Tribunal, and have access to Australian courts to appeal an unfavourable ruling. If you come via boat, you get a ‘review’ process. That process looks like a court, but is not bound by Australian law. If the bureaucrats in charge of that deny your claim, your only hope is to pray that the Immigration Minister considers your case personally. Otherwise, you’ll be deported.

This is the ‘compassionate’ system put in place by the Howard government on Christmas Island and Nauru, and continued by the Rudd and Gillard governments even after the closure of the Nauru centre. In one of the most shameless and inhumane pieces of legislation passed by the Howard Government, Christmas Island, Ashmore Reef and other destinations commonly sought by asylum seekers were ‘excised’ from Australian jurisdiction under the Immigration Act. This made it possible to deny full access to Australian law, in much the same way the US prevented suspected ‘terrorists’ from seeking legal redress in the courts. Although the Rudd government introduced an Independent Merits Review Process in 2008 so that those whose claims were denied once could appeal, the reality is that outside contractors hold the fate of asylum seekers in their hands – contractors who are not required to have any experience in immigration law, and who are accountable only to the Minister.

The High Court found today that this system is completely unfair, that it denies the rights of boat-borne asylum seekers the right to a fair hearing under Australian law. It ruled that all asylum seekers were bound by the Migration Act and other Australian laws, regardless of their mode of travel. This means that the government now derives no benefit from funnelling asylum seekers through offshore processing – they can no longer do an end run around the law. As law firm Allens Arthur Robinson, the legal firm who handled the case on behalf of the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre noted, the decision ‘has important legal ramifications’.

Scott Morrison, the Coalition’s Shadow Immigration spokesperson, seems not to understand this. Shaking his head in disbelief, he fronted the media to tell them that this was a ‘terrible’ decision, ‘the best day for people smugglers since the reappointment of the Gillard government’. This was ‘proof’ of Labor’s ‘policy failure of cack-handedness’, he said, and added that the government should now embrace the Nauru solution. The High Court’s ruling did not apply to Nauru, he said. I’d like to think this was some kind of political strategy, but in reality, I think he just doesn’t get it. Whether asylum seekers come to Tullamarine Airport, Christmas Island, or Nauru, if they claim asylum from Australia they must now have access to the Australian court system.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said he was getting legal advice from the Solicitor-General, and would make recommendations to Cabinet within a few weeks. He seemed keen to create the impression that the ruling did not affect the policy of offshore detention, or the excision of Australian territories from the Migration Act. To say he looked like he didn’t believe that himself is an understatement. He was extremely nervous, and not just because David Marr was standing behind his shoulder looking like the Ghost of Righteous Fury Vindicated. (Read the excellent Dark Victory, which he co-wrote with Marian Wilkinson, if you haven’t yet heard his views on Australia’s refugee policy.) At this time, 145 people have been denied refugee status. That’s a potential 145 appeals.

Unless the government moves to introduce some particularly dodgy legislation, the implications of this High Court decision are far-reaching. It may not end offshore detention – there are certain political benefits, disgusting as that may be, to having refugees ‘out of sight and out of mind’. The recent xenophobic rabble-rousing over the proposed new centres at Northam and Inverbrackie prove that unpleasant point. At the very least, however, boat-borne asylum seekers should now have access to the court system, and would no longer be subject to the whims of the bureaucracy.

The Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre, who were the main drivers of this High Court case, have not said whether they plan further legal action. It would be interesting to see whether the High Court would rule that incarcerating those who come on boats, while letting those who arrive by plane walk around freely, was an illegal two-tier system. Certainly, there are no good reasons for assuming that a sea-borne refugee is a greater threat to the community.

In the meantime, no matter what parliamentarians might be saying to the media, there is no getting away from the fact that this decision could change how Australia handles refugee claims – and change it for the better.

14 Comments | Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by theconsciencevote

Asylum seekers – what are we afraid of?

July 15, 2010

In all the kerfuffle and mud-slinging about exactly which tiny developing nation should host a detention centre for processing asylum seekers who come by boat, quite a few issues are being effectively obscured. Now, I’m not going to suggest that this is deliberate. Despite the vicious rhetoric that flies back and forth between the major parties, I don’t really believe that there is an active, evil conspiracy at work here. As the saying goes, ‘never ascribe to conspiracy what can be effectively explained by incompetence’ – or in this case, simple blindness. It may be wilful blindness, but nonetheless, it really seems as though there is an actual inability to consider some things.

Think about the assumptions that are at work here.

1. Asylum seekers who try to reach Australia by boat must be prevented from reaching our migration zone.

2. Any who do manage to survive the dangerous trip from Indonesia need to be detained in an offshore facility until their claims are processed.

These assumptions go largely unchallenged (although, to their credit, the Greens have consistently attempted to bring them into question). Even as Prime Minister Gillard acknowledges how few people attempt to seek asylum in Australia via boat, she reaffirms that detention is necessary, and offshore detention is actually desirable. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott goes even further, seeking to effectively remove any hope of asylum and resettlement with the new Coalition policy announced last week. There are few questions coming from the media, either. Most reports never even raise the issue. The argument is not about whether these things should be implemented, but about the details of how they will happen.

What’s worse is that no good reasons are ever given to justify these stances. Most commonly, the ‘queue-jumper’ argument is used as a catch-all rationalisation. Those who come by boat are taking the places that should go to ‘genuine’ refugees, and so they need to be punished. That will deter others from trying the same approach. Asylum seekers are effectively branded as cheats, selfishly spending huge amounts of money rather than wait their turn. Going even further, some argue that this shows that they are not ‘real’ refugees at all, but so-called ‘economic’ refugees who are just trying to migrate to a country with more opportunities to make money. And look at how much money it takes to get here – if they’ve got so much money, why can’t they just do the ‘right’ thing?

In reality, the majority of people who attempt to come by boat are fleeing countries without an embassy or consulate. In some cases, these countries have strict penalties for those who attempt to leave – including capital punishment. People are forced to undertake dangerous journeys to get to a country that has such facilities. The argument has been made that perhaps they should just seek to enter Pakistan or another nearby country, and join the ‘queue’ there. Such statements betray a lack of knowledge about geographical and political issues. Paradoxically, it can actually be safer to reach Indonesia and strike out for Australia, than to attempt to get to a closer country.

The idea that asylum seekers are wealthy completely ignores an appalling fact. People fleeing for their lives will do anything to keep themselves and their families safe. They will sell every possession they have. They will borrow money from anyone who will lend it to them – and given their situation, this often means placing themselves in debt to organised crime groups. Finally, some people smugglers will offer to take people for a lesser fee – provided they enter into an agreement to pay their debt once resettled. Again, this usually has criminal ties, and people may effectively find themselves bound into indentured servitude.

Occasionally one or both sides will play the ‘humanitarian’ card, arguing that everything possible should be done to deter people from making the risky voyage. This usually goes hand-in-hand with the idea of taking a ‘strong stance’ against people smuggling. By making it harder to reach Australia by boat, people will be less attracted to the ‘product’ that people smugglers are selling, driving them out of business.

Apart from the hideously comic idea of attempting to solve an ongoing human crisis by appeal to market forces, this argument is frankly ridiculous. Asylum seekers are desperate people who need to escape, and they will take whatever means are available to them to do so. They will sell themselves into hock, risk their lives on unseaworthy boats, and suffer through detention and processing. There is no deterrence factor at work here – and even if there is, all that these punitive measures actually achieve is to place asylum seekers in an untenable position; stay, and risk imprisonment, persecution or death, or go and risk debt, imprisonment or death. There is nothing humanitarian about turning back boats, detention or Temporary Protection Visas. The only people being punished are the very ones who are seeking help.

Neither of these arguments answer the basic question: why must asylum seekers be prevented from reaching Australia? The Opposition’s rhetoric has been almost hysterical – there is an ‘armada’ of boats, a ‘tsunami’ of asylum seekers, or a ‘peaceful invasion’. All their language is designed to portray an imminent threat to Australia. Their most recent television ads showed huge red arrows barrelling towards the country, evoking those animations beloved of old war movies that show the inexorable march of the dreaded enemy forces. Recently, these ads have disappeared, but they left their mark on the Australian psyche.

But what might actually happen if asylum seekers did get here? To answer that question all we really have to do is look at our own history. Have we unwittingly let terrorists into the country, who have wreaked havoc? No. Have we seen Australians robbed of their jobs? No. Have asylum seekers become a huge drain on the welfare system, plunging the country into debt. No. What we see, over and over, are asylum seekers being granted refugee status, taking their place in Australian society, working hard and building strong ties with their local communities.

If they are not dangerous, why are both major parties so keen to have them processed offshore? The short ugly answer is ‘out of sight, out of mind’. Geographical isolation is very effective in removing the issue from public scrutiny. Media would need to make international trips to report on the situation, or liaise with local organisations – and we saw during the Pacific Solution how difficult this proved to be, once the government agreed to restrict access. Most of us learn about asylum seekers through the media – once that channel is narrowed, or even closed, we will have only politicians to tell us what is actually going on.

But maybe I’m seeing too much conscious thought at work here. Maybe it’s even simpler than that. Maybe what is at work here is simple xenophobia. Circle the wagons, protect the women and children, the boat people are coming! They might be terrorists! They can’t be trusted! They’re not like us! Up and down the country, the language of fear and hatred is pervasive.

What are we all so afraid of?

The Greens have been arguing for years for a compassionate view of the asylum seeker issue. Over and over again they have said there is nothing to fear from people who come by boats. We take very few refugees compared with other countries – we rank 47th in the world based on numbers, 68th per capita and 77th based on wealth – yet we are implementing ever more punitive policies against them. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has said that Australia, as a nation committed to the idea of ‘a fair go and justice’, should be doing more, not less, to help. We have the resources to do so, she said.

It’s a strong, consistent position, argued with solid figures and a great deal of passion. But is it reaching anyone but their own supporters? Looking around, you’d have to say it’s not. And until people – and politicians – can be forced to declare just why they are so afraid of desperate people in boats, I’m afraid it will stay that way. As long as the xenophobia is buried under vagueness, and allowed to escape rigorous examination, there is little possibility that it can be effectively refuted.

We Australians don’t want to think of ourselves as racist, or unfair, or anything but decent people. We should confront our own fears unflinchingly, drag them out into the light of rational argument and start looking at the real situation. Most importantly, and most urgently, we should start seeing asylum seekers as fellow human beings who need our help.

8 Comments | Politics | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by theconsciencevote

Nauru says ‘make an offer’

July 15, 2010

Marcus Stephen, President of Nauru, has reportedly said he would be happy for the Australian government to reopen the processing centre in his country, and to sign the UN Refugee Convention.

This dovetails rather neatly with Tony Abbott’s declarations of a few days before, and puts Julia Gillard in an uncomfortable position. On the one hand, here is a country apparently willing to do what East Timor is reluctant to consider, and to reject the offer in favour of an entirely new centre looks not only pig-headed but also open up the government to criticisms about ‘wasteful’ and ‘unnecessary’ spending. On the other, accepting such an offer would expose Gillard to accusations of back-flipping and ‘me-too’. (And just an observation about this last phrase – when did it become a point of criticism for political parties to agree on an approach??)

On the face of it, Nauru’s offer is attractive. It saves money, and with the convention signed, Labor’s principal objection is countered. But is that the whole story?

Stephen was interviewed by David Speers on PM Agenda yesterday, and some rather interesting things came out. Nauru never signed the Refugee Convention because, apparently, the Howard government never asked it to do so. If not being a signatory would prove an obstacle to re-opening the centre (with Australian funding), then Stephen said he was happy to change that status. Now call me picky, but the idea that signing the Covention is being considered for what are apparently purely monetary reasons does not exactly fill me with confidence. There is also the unpleasant fact that merely signing the Convention will not guarantee compliance with its provisions. That can only be assured with vigilant monitoring. Still, that Nauru is prepared to do this at least seems to indicate a willingness to come to the party.

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, for his part, said he was pleased that Nauru was considering signing the Convention, but that the government was committed to pursuing talks with East Timor. Realistically, there was little else he could say. To immediately abandon talks with East Timor would not only be politically damaging, but could also harm relations with that country.

Asked about whether he would be willing to look at hosting a regional centre, President Stephen said he’d keep ‘an open mind’. He pointed out that the centre was currently being used for government offices and a high school, but that could be changed. Just how this change would happen was not explored, but presumably would involve a considerable amount of expense. The implication is that Australia would pay for that, as well as refurbishing the centre itself and its ongoing running costs. And speaking of those costs, Stephen said he has ‘no idea’ what it cost under the Pacific Solution – he claimed, in fact, that everything was run by Australia and the UNHCR, and that there was little communication between governments. Speers offered the figure of $1million per month. Stephen could not confirm.

He did come out strongly against the idea that the centre had been unfit accommodations, claiming that the refugees were so well-treated that Nauruans used to joke that perhaps they should become asylum seekers. Those housed in the centre had access to a lifestyle that would be the envy of many people. This directly contradicts evidence (including photographs) given to the official inquiry, as well as observations by aid workers, human rights lawyers and those kept in detention there. Stephen blames the media, and says they should have come out to Nauru to see for themselves – yet his government complied with Australian requests to restrict access to the camps. There is clearly more than a little historical revision going on here, probably designed to make Nauru appear as attractive as possible. The idea of the Nauru centre as a ‘unique fixer-upperer opportunity’, however, is very difficult to sell.

1 Comment | Politics | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by theconsciencevote

Gillard & Abbott – playing ‘keepings-off’ with asylum seekers

July 13, 2010

The asylum seeker debate is in full swing now. The Government can’t get away from it, carefully timed announcements about extensions to the Education Tax Refund notwithstanding. And the Opposition doesn’t want to get away from it. The events of the last week have been exceptionally useful in that regard.

After Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s announcement on Tuesday that she had been in talks with East Timorese President Jose Ramos Horta and New Zealand Prime Minister John Key about a ‘regional processing centre’ for asylum seekers who arrive by boat, the Opposition pounced. They zeroed in on the fact that there had been no firm announcement of policy, adding the accusation that Gillard was attempting to ‘pass the buck’ to East Timor without even a firm agreement from our northern neighbour. Almost as an aside, they pointed out that she had contacted a Head of State rather than of Government for this talk – rather like US President Obama ringing up our Governor-General to discuss policy. It was, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott asserted, ‘policy on the run’ and proof positive of the Gillard Government’s incompetence.

The situation was further complicated by an apparent series of backflips from the government. They never said the centre would be in East Timor. They had talked to the Government of Papua New Guinea. East Timor was always their first choice. Then, last night, the news broke that the East Timorese Parliament had unanimously passed a resolution rejecting any idea of a refugee processing centre in their country.

That appeared to be the final nail in the coffin for the Government’s proposal. Certainly, the Opposition thought so. Shadow Education Spokesperson Christopher Pyne last night on QandA was quick to say it, and Abbott confidently declared the policy ‘sunk’ in a press conference this morning. Abbott went on to repeat his earlier declarations of incompetence with barely concealed glee, while trying to reassure the press gaggle that he didn’t ‘want to get personal’.

But what’s actually going on here? Let’s look at it.

Gillard’s policy announcement said that she had talked with East Timor’s President about ‘the possibility of establishing a regional processing centre for the purpose of receiving and processing of the irregular entrants to the region’, and had received a positive response to the idea. New Zealand’s Prime Minister had also affirmed his openness to discussing the initiative. At no point did she ever say that this centre would be located in East Timor – or, for that matter, in New Zealand. It’s worth noting that the Opposition never raised this possibility, given the vagueness of the announcement.

That being said, the implication was clear, especially in the light of her later statements about East Timor being her ‘first choice’ for a centre. So, granting this, what exactly is the problem?

The Opposition has said that East Timor is a poor country, and that Gillard should not be fobbing off Australia’s responsibilities to an area that is still unsettled, and economically very depressed. It’s simply unfair to expect it. Their statements about the state of the country are accurate – we still have troops in East Timor, and by no stretch of the imagination could it be considered a prosperous nation. But look again at Gillard’s policy announcement. There was nothing said about expecting East Timor to shoulder the burden of building, maintaining and operating the centre. In fact, Gillard stressed repeatedly that a regional solution was needed, pointing to Australia and New Zealand as key resettlement countries who should be co-operating in sharing the burden. She also affirmed that the UNHCR would have oversight and East Timor – as a signatory to the UN’s Refugee Convention – would operate under the UN’s guidelines.

The Opposition had an alternative site ready to propose – Nauru. There is already a processing centre on Nauru, they argued. Using it worked well before, and Nauru’s President was ‘just waiting for a phone call’, Abbott said in his press conference this morning. There is a centre on Nauru, built with Australian money under John Howard’s Government as part of the ‘Pacific Solution’ and accompanied by millions of dollars of desperately-needed aid money for the bankrupt nation. Kevin Rudd’s Government closed that centre in February 2008, shutting off the aid. Theoretically it could be re-opened at considerably less expense than it would take to build a new centre in East Timor.

What Abbott didn’t mention, though, was that Nauru has never been a signatory to the UN Convention, and there was no suggestion that it was about to become one. Under the Pacific Solution, Nauru (at the urging of the Howard Government) denied access to UN observers, legal advisors, political scrutineers and the media. Were the Nauru centre to be re-opened, there would be no way to assure that this situation did not repeat itself. Additionally, the centre as it is exists is simply not large enough to function as a regional processing centre – nor could it be considered to meet reasonable accommodation standards. In a tropical country, refugees were housed in poorly-ventilated, substandard housing with hopelessly inadequate sanitation facilities. For more details on Nauru during its operating years, see this submission to the 2006 Inquiry.

As for the East Timorese Parliament’s rejection of the Gillard proposal, there are wildly differing opinions as to just how significant this action may be. The Government assured Australians that the vote was ‘poorly attended’ – less than half the sitting members were present – and in any case, both the President and Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao were still open to the possibility. The Opposition has stated that the parliament’s action categorically puts paid to any possibility of a refugee centre on East Timorese soil.

Both sides are playing a rather disingenuous game. Gillard’s claims, while accurate, ignore the fact that both sides of the East Timorese Parliament united against the proposal. Should the executive decide to accept it, there would likely be an uphill battle to put it into action. Abbott, on the other hand, has obscured the fact that what was passed in the Parliament was a resolution, not legislation, and may have no legal force whatsoever. Although the resolution rejects the proposal and calls on the Executive Government to do likewise, it cannot be considered a definitive statement on the country’s position.

What the resolution does show is that the proposal does not sit at all well with the East Timorese Parliament. The reasons cited for rejection include a fear that people may feel resentment at having to live next to refugees in a well-designed centre with good facilities, when so many in their country live in poverty. They also fear that East Timor will be made to bear expenses that it simply cannot afford. The second reason is easily addressed, but the first is valid, and may well prove an obstacle that cannot be removed. Resentment and xenophobia are extraordinarily difficult to counter – something I will be looking at in my next blog.

So where does that leave us?

The Government says it remains committed to a regional solution, with Foreign Minister Stephen Smith travelling to Indonesia to talk to their government about what role it might take in such a situation. The Opposition declares it is the only one with a ‘concrete’ policy on what it insists on calling ‘border security’.

What neither side wants to look at, it seems, is the idea of building a regional processing centre in Australian territory. The Greens have pointed out that we are the wealthiest and most politically stable country in the region. We are, in fact, the only country to have escaped a recession in the recent Global Financial Crisis. Building such a centre here – or adapting an existing detention centre – would be far less expensive than doing so offshore. If we are prepared to transport asylum seekers from Indonesia (the point of departure for the risky boat journey to Australia) to East Timor or Nauru, why not to our own shores?

When asked this question last night, both Christopher Pyne and Immigration Minister Chris Evans blustered, obfuscated and completely failed to provide satisfactory answers. They could not give even one good reason to reject the idea of an Australian-based regional processing centre – and they were both anxious to have the idea become lost in what amounted to meaningless quacking noises (with the occasional dog-whistle). This is deeply suspicious.

What, then, is going on here? Why does such a seemingly sensible solution drive the Government and the Opposition into lockstep in their haste to avoid it?

The answer is depressingly simple, and very, very ugly. Xenophobia. These are politicians reacting to deep-seated fear and hatred in some areas of the Australian community – and politicians are nothing if not weather vanes.

All of this leads us to the next questions – just what is at the root of this xenophobia, what’s feeding it, and what – if anything – can be done about it?

Stay tuned …

3 Comments | Politics | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by theconsciencevote

Asylum seeker policies – the ALP

July 6, 2010

In my previous post I took a look at the Liberal/National Coalition’s asylum seeker policy. Now, it’s time to focus on the government. The transcript of Prime Minister Gillard’s speech can be found here.

The ALP tried hard to occupy the centre on this one. In the entire speech, less than ten minutes was given over to actual policy detail. The rest could be characterised as fire-fighting – but it’s worth taking a look at what Gillard actually said.

Her first move was to rap the Coalition over the knuckles for what she called ‘hollow slogans’, and to dismiss their ‘turn back the boats’ stance. This approach would only result in people needing to be rescued when their boats were scuttled, she said, quickly assuring everyone that ‘our nation would not leave children to drown’. She quickly followed up with some statistics. Only about 1.6% of our total migrant intake was from asylum seekers who came by boat, she said, adding that there was nothing to be gained by overstating the problem. Equally, though, she criticised the labelling of ‘concerned people’ as ‘rednecks’ and racists’. This was in reference to remarks made by noted human rights lawyer, Julian Burnside QC, although she misquoted him quite significantly. Burnside’s use of those terms was directed as those who called for asylum seekers to be turned back ‘at gunpoint’.

Gillard missed a huge opportunity here. Although her opening remarks seemed to indicate that she was trying to defuse the xenophobia that all too often surrounds the issue of asylum seekers, she gave tacit approval to it by defending those who – she said – had a ‘reasonable concern’ about a ‘difficult problem’. Rather than try to counter scare-mongering rhetoric, she afforded those who espoused those xenophobic sentiments unexamined legitimacy.

The ALP’s own election slogan may have made an appearance during this speech. Gillard talked constantly of ‘Moving Forward’ (capitalised in the transcript). This was coupled with the idea of ‘sustainability’, another Gillard buzz-word that appears to be settling in for the long-haul. (It’s already been applied to both population and economic growth.)

Gillard linked the idea of accepting refugees to the ALP’s ‘sustainable population’ policy, which has been trickling out over the last two weeks. This is a form of targeted, selected immigration, whereby certain professions are privileged over others, and certain areas (such as heavily populated Western Sydney) become less available as places of settlement. Just how this was linked to asylum seeker policy was never explained, although Gillard assured listeners that this sustainable population was ‘in response’ to increased asylum seeker arrivals – what she called ‘unauthorised people movements’. (Frankly, I’m at a loss to explain what a UPM actually is – possible a rude gestuer at the teacher, or dirty dancing?)

Gillard took pains to point out that there was ‘nothing humane’ about either the risky voyage at the mercy of people smugglers, nor the detention of children and punishment of asylum seekers simply for fleeing persecution. That was a rather slippery bit of political maneuvring there – she effectively linked the almost universally-despised trade of people smuggling with Coalition policy.

After a little bit of flag-waving and appeal to the ‘rule of law’, Gillard finally got to the substance of the policy. And it boils down to this – a motherhood statement without much details, just one very uncomfortable possibility.

Going one step further than the Coalition, Gillard promised to work with other countries to stop people smuggling ‘at the point of origin’. It’s unclear whether she was referring to the initial embarkation, or to the departure of the boats, usually from Indonesia, for the final leg to Australia. She also did not say which countries she was including in that statement. There were promises to put more Coast Guard boats in the water to patrol the borders and tougher penalties for those caught people smuggling.

All that was eclipsed by her next announcement, however.

Gillard stated that she had begun talks with Timor’s President Jose Ramos Horta, and with New Zealand’s Prime Minister John Key about establishing a ‘regional processing centre’. Though she did not state that this centre would be in Timor itself, her implication was clear. The centre would function as a clearing-house for asylum seekers looking to settle in New Zealand or Australia. At this stage, there are no firm plans, but Gillard indicated that she was hopeful of developing them. In effect, Gillard wants to create a queue for the ‘queue-jumpers’.

She hastened to add that she had also spoken to the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, and assured him that this was not a return to the Pacific Solution. On the face of it, though, this policy is very, very similar to the Coalition’s policy of offshore processing. Let’s break it down – asylum seekers who attempt to reach Australia will be ‘encouraged’ to go to the proposed regional centre. Anyone who does front up in Australia will be sent to said centre. Once processed, the (presumably) successful refugee will be resettled, probably in either Australia or New Zealand.

The major difference appears to be that (a) asylum seekers won’t be sent to an island made of bird guano, and (b) Gillard has stated that the UNHCR will be involved in every stage of development and implementation of the proposed centre. I’m not sure that this is entirely sufficient to differentiate it from Abbott’s policy, however.

Having delivered the punch, Gillard almost casually let it be known that the government was resuming processing of Sri Lankan asylum claims (suspended under Rudd’s leadership), on a case-by-case basis. (Sadly, the processing of claims from Afghan nationals is still suspended, for an unknown period.) Really, this should have been the first announcement she made. The suspension of processing claims was proving to be a subject of controversy, with the government attracting a huge amount of criticism – yet the news that it was to end was sandwiched between a speech containing that huge headline-grabber, and an ominously vague assertion that refugees who did settle here would be expected to ‘follow the rules’, with an implied penalty if this did not happen. These ‘rules’ apparently include speaking English, getting a job and sending your kids to school.

Gillard’s language was, on the whole, less inflammatory than Abbott’s. Her favoured word was unauthorised, applied equally to boats, people and movement – although she also referred to irregular migration. She appeared to be trying to cast the asylum seeker situation as a matter of bureaucracy, rather than national threat.

Like Abbott, Gillard used border protection to describe patrolling for asylum seeker boats, but reserved her strongest language for the people smuggling trade. She reserved her fiercest language for people smugglers, saying that people smugglers were nothing humane and evil and that refugees neede to be protected from them.

So what the ALP policy boils down to is – more patrols and an offshore processing centre under the auspices of the UN. There are differences to the Coalition policy (notably, the absence of TPVs and overtly xenophobic rhetoric), but they are nuanced at best.

It remains to be seen what policy the Greens and other minor parties will release on this issue.

1 Comment | Politics | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by theconsciencevote

Asylum seeker policies – the Coalition

July 6, 2010

So, it looks like the campaigning for the Australian election has started, before it has even been called. The attack ads are out already, and now we are seeing policy announcements.

As I did in 2007, I’ll be taking a close look at policies as they are unveiled, and covering the debates.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott both unveiled their party’s policies on asylum seekers today, amid accusations of dog-whistling and slogan-slinging. Here’s my take … first, the policy unveiled by Tony Abbott. You can find a summary here.

The first thing that is immediately apparent is just how much the Coalition policy is a backward leap. There is very little that is new – in fact, I have to wonder if someone in Abbott’s staff dusted off some old Howard-era policies and prettied them up a bit. These are the main points.

Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs)

Under a Coalition government, TPVs would be immediately reinstated. These were first introduced in 1999, and the Rudd government abolished them. A TPV effectively puts a third step in the refugee process. A person would claim asylum, be mandatorily detained, then after processing be granted a TPV. Some years later, that person would have to re-apply for asylum – in case, according to the Howard government, conditions had significantly changed for the better in their country of origin. Assuming their claim was upheld, a permanent visa would be issued.

A TPV imposes a huge number of restrictions on a refugee. They may not leave the country under any circumstances. They are prohibited from seeking employment or claiming benefits from Social Security. Finally, they may not apply to have their family join them under a family reunion program.

Those who support the idea of TPVs say that it allows for flexibility in processing refugees, and acts as a deterrent for those who ‘misuse’ the asylum process. The problem, though, is that TPVs effectively place refugees in a no-man’s-land of extreme uncertainty. The bar on employment or Social Security leaves them with no possible way of supporting themselves or any family who made the trip with them. This virtually forces them to break Australian law, either by seeking cash-in-hand employment or by engaging in crime,all so they can put food on the table. If caught, such people are automatically deported.

Mandatory detention is recognised by the UNHCR and refugee advocate groups as a psychologically stressful process, with many refugees requiring years of counselling. Add to that a situation in which simple family responsibility is rendered virtually impossible by design, and you have a cascading problem that may never be addressed.

Off-shore Processing

Another backward step in the Coalition policy is the re-introduction of offshore processing. During the Howard years, this was known as the ‘Pacific Solution’, in reference to the detention centre that was built and maintained on Nauru with Australian government money. Under the Pacific Solution, intercepted asylum seekers were towed or escorted to Nauru by Australian Navy personnel. Nauru is geographically remote, with very little infrastructure. The only reason there was settlement there in the first place is because it had phosphate mines (which are now exhausted). The injection of money from Australia came at a crucial time for the Nauru government. Part of the arrangement included an unofficial ‘discouragement’ of visits by media – or, in fact, anyone who did not have an absolute right to be there. Some refugees were kept in this barren isolation for years.

The Nauru centre is now closed. The Coalition has not said whether they will attempt to reopen that facility, or build another. Their policy statement simply says ‘another country’.

Denial of Refugee Status without Documentation

One of the new elements of the Coalition’s policy states that any asylum seeker suspected of ‘deliberately’ destroying or discarding their identification will be presumed not to be a true refugee, and will therefore be deported at the first opportunity. This is a very dangerous policy. It is completely subjective. Unless an Australian official actually catches someone in the act of burning or dumping documents, it is entirely a matter of opinion as to whether a lack of identification is indicative of an intended deception. It does not take into account any other possible explanation.

Most asylum seekers risk their lives on boats that are barely seaworthy – and in some cases, only kept afloat through constant bailing by those on board. Often, these boats sink. This may be due to sabotage or simple accident. Put yourself in the place of those people. Your boat is sinking. You need to save yourself, and perhaps your children. Is locating your ID going to be the first thing on your mind? Of course not.

The Coalition’s policy also fails to take into account the fact that many asylum seekers simply do not have any documentation. Political dissidents often take steps to make themselves unidentifiable – not because they wish to deceive a country of refuge, but because they would be prevented from leaving if their identification was sighted. Members of persecuted minorities may also be denied citizenship papers.

The Coalition’s policy announcement dismisses the government’s case-by-case approach as ‘tick and flick’, implying that assessing each case on its merits and making a decision on the balance of probabilities is somehow unfair. Instead, it proposes an automatic assumption of guilt, and – crucially – says nothing about avenues of appeal.

Turn Back the Boats

This has become a de facto slogan for the Coalition, and was included in the policy measures announced today. Where possible, boats would be forced to return to their port of origin. The statement does not say how this is to be accomplished, though Abbott’s press conference indicated that it would be a similar approach that used in the Howard years. In other words, Australian Coast Guard and Defence personnel would patrol known avenues of approach and prevent boats from landing in Australia’s migration zone.

When this policy was in use, only 12 boats were actually intercepted, and never without incident. Three, in fact, sank. This approach stemmed from the so-called Tampa affair, during which the Australian government attempted to prevent a Norwegian ship that had rescued asylum seekers in distress from landing in Australia’s migration zone. Although unsuccessful in the Tampa case, the government rewrote the country’s migration borders to allow them to turn away any boat deemed ‘unauthorised’.

This approach endangers lives. As previously noted, the boats are none too seaworthy anyway, and, reportedly, some boats have been scuttled when ordered to turn around. In 2009, this led to the deaths of five people, with a further 51 injured, including Australian Navy personnel who had boarded the craft to render assistance. The Coalition’s flat statement that they will ‘turn back the boats’ does nothing to address this possibility. In a case where a boat sinks, international law compels Australia to render immediate assistance. Should those rescued be taken on board, and receive medical assistance, they can immediately request asylum. The Coalition’s policy is worryingly silent on what it would do in those circumstances.

Sponsored Refugee Program

The last major element of Coalition policy involves trialling a system that is in use in Canada. Under this system, ‘interested parties’ can apply to sponsor refugees over and above Australia’s recommended quota (13,750 as of 2010). These interested parties are not defined in the policy statement, though Abbott did refer to ‘business’, effectively likening this to a form of targeted skilled migration. According to the Migration Policy Institute, some 9.7% of refugee claims fell under this ‘sponsored by business’ category in 2000.

The Canadian model requires sponsors to pay ‘financial settlement assistance’ and provide ‘emotional assistance’ for one year, after which the sponsorship customarily ends. The refugees are drawn from those who have already entered the system by claiming asylum through ‘regular’ channels. If the Coalition intends to apply the Canadian model as it currently exists, it could provide opportunities for refugees to settle in Australia. It should be pointed out, however, that this part of its policy does not address the question of arrivals by boat at all.

So that’s the Coalition’s policy in a nutshell. But before I move on to the ALP policy, let’s just take a look at the language used, in both the Policy Statement and Abbott’s press conference. First, there were the frequent reference to legitimate refugees – implying, of course, that anyone who arrived by boat was automatically not ‘really’ in need of asylum. This is just another way of saying ‘queue-jumper’. At one point in the press conference, Abbott referred to illegal boat people, which harks right back to the first wave of refugees-by-boat from Vietnam in the 1970s. Abbott took it one step further, though, not only using the pejorative ‘boat people’, but implying that the mere existence of these people breached some kind of unwritten moral law.

Then there is border protection and integrity of our borders. The unspoken message here is that those who make the journey by boat to seek asylum, often putting themselves in the hands of criminals and risking their lives, are a threat to our country in the same way an invading force would be. This is the language of fear, and, married to the marginalising and demonising language also being used, makes for a deadly combination.

The sprinkling of words like fair and generous do nothing to allay this fear.

Almost everything in the Coalition’s policy appears designed to legitimise the most xenophobic attitudes, while attempting to salve the Australian conscience by reassuring us that we are, in fact, the most generous of countries. Worryingly, it is precisely this approach that worked so well for the Coalition in the 2001 election following the Tampa affair. At that time, the ALP in Opposition was hopelessly divided on the subject, and had little in the way of coherent refugee policy – a fact exploited to great effect by the Howard government. It seems that the Coalition are hoping for a similar situation this year … which brings me to Julia Gillard’s announcement this morning.

1 Comment | Politics | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by theconsciencevote

Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,223 other followers

%d bloggers like this: